The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) was introduced in India to address a longstanding problem in the country's financial and economic landscape. Prior to the IBC's

implementation, India's insolvency and bankruptcy resolution framework was fragmented, slow, and often ineffective. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) was introduced in India to

address a longstanding problem in the country's financial and economic landscape. Prior to the IBC's implementation, India's insolvency and bankruptcy resolution framework was

fragmented, slow, and often ineffective.The existing legal framework for dealing with insolvency cases in India was cumbersome and lacked a well-defined, time-bound resolution process. This

losses. At the start of its implementation, a default of as small as ₹1 lakh could lead to insolvency proceedings being initiated by the affected creditor. This gave creditors the confidence

that borrowers, especially promoters, would take their debt obligations seriously. In IBC there are three stakeholders the play key role * CoC (Committee of Creditors): The CoC is a

committee comprising of financial creditors, and it plays a central role in the insolvency process. The CoC is responsible for approving or rejecting resolution plans and making important

decisions during the process. * Resolution Professionals:RP is a licensed insolvency professional who is appointed to manage the affairs of the corporate debtor during the insolvency

process. The resolution professional is responsible for conducting the resolution process, preparing a resolution plan, and ensuring the fair treatment of all stakeholders. * Corporate

Debtors: This is the entity undergoing insolvency proceedings, such as a company or individual. Though the intention of the IBC code was good, it was later bogged down with delays. _“IBC

Code faced some hiccups during the initial stage which were expected to be resolved in coming years. After a survey it was noted that around 60-65% of the average total delay was due to time

taken in obtaining an approval for a resolution plan from the committee of creditors (CoC) and the adjudicating authority, the bankruptcy courts”_ says Dr Kislay Pandey who is top Supreme

Court lawyer and NCLT (National Company Law Tribunal) expert. But it does not mean that IBC story has lost its steam. A later statistic proves this. As per report by Insolvency and

Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), since its inception in 2016, around 65% of the cases reported under Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) have been closed, which is an impressive

number. But only 9% of the cases were resolved where resolution plan was approved by CoC and other stakeholders. In the entire liquidation process, it is the CoC and courts who have been

bottlenecks. Also, Public Sector banks are very risk averse and do not take decisions quickly. Their recovery expectations are very high, and they are not keento get into legal or vigilance

related audits. Experienced corporate attorney Dr Kislay Pandey is his analysis of the situation states_,” Banks should be given independence to take bold decisions. Their conservative

attitude leads to unnecessary delays and court cases. At times they refrain from taking pragmatic decisions.” _ Corporate lawyers and experts agree that a thorough reevaluation is necessary

to create an effective insolvency system which suits India's unique circumstances, like limited court capacity and excessive regulatory hurdles. It is imperative that the government

takes timely action, as any delay risks reducing the effectiveness of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and may cause stakeholders, who once saw it as a savior, to lose faith and seek

alternative solutions.